IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/urbpla/v11y2026a10737.html

Modern Board Games: Can They Be Geogames?

Author

Listed:
  • Micael Sousa

    (CITTA—Research Centre for Territory, Transports and Environment, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Coimbra, Portugal)

  • Ítalo Sousa de Sena

    (Spatial Dynamics Lab, School of Architecture, Planning and Environmental Policy, University College Dublin, Ireland)

  • Chiara Cocco

    (Spatial Dynamics Lab, School of Architecture, Planning and Environmental Policy, University College Dublin, Ireland)

  • Gabriel Mota

    (Graduate Program in Physical Geography, Faculty of Philosophy, Languages and Literature, and Human Sciences, São Paulo University, Brazil)

  • Grace Houser

    (Spatial Dynamics Lab, School of Architecture, Planning and Environmental Policy, University College Dublin, Ireland)

Abstract

This article addresses the evolving concept of geogames, traditionally focused on digital and location‐based experiences, and explores the potential of modern board games as an analogue form of geogame. While geogames have been defined by their use of real‐world spatial information, often through GIS technology, there is a recognized need to include more abstract and imaginative representations of space, particularly in analogue formats. This study investigates how modern commercial entertainment board games, characterized by innovative game mechanics and spatial representation, connect with the concept of geogames. It employs a bibliometric analysis of geogame literature and a descriptive analysis of modern board games from the BoardGameGeek database. Key findings indicate a lack of research on analogue games within geogame specific literature, while revealing that modern board games effectively utilize spatial units, territory representation, and game mechanics to create virtual spatial worlds. The study concludes that modern board games align with the definition of geogame, advocating for their inclusion in the geogame research agenda.

Suggested Citation

  • Micael Sousa & Ítalo Sousa de Sena & Chiara Cocco & Gabriel Mota & Grace Houser, 2026. "Modern Board Games: Can They Be Geogames?," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 11.
    • Handle: RePEc:cog:urbpla:v11:y:2026:a:10737
    DOI: 10.17645/up.10737
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/urbanplanning/article/view/10737
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17645/up.10737?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nees Jan Eck & Ludo Waltman, 2010. "Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(2), pages 523-538, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jacob Wood & Gohar Feroz Khan, 2015. "International trade negotiation analysis: network and semantic knowledge infrastructure," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(1), pages 537-556, October.
    2. Yingjin Song & Ruiyi Li & Guanyi Chen & Beibei Yan & Lei Zhong & Yuxin Wang & Yihang Li & Jinlei Li & Yingxiu Zhang, 2021. "Bibliometric Analysis of Current Status on Bioremediation of Petroleum Contaminated Soils during 2000–2019," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-20, August.
    3. Lutz Bornmann & Robin Haunschild & Sven E. Hug, 2018. "Visualizing the context of citations referencing papers published by Eugene Garfield: a new type of keyword co-occurrence analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(2), pages 427-437, February.
    4. Niccolò Comerio & Fernanda Strozzi, 2019. "Tourism and its economic impact: A literature review using bibliometric tools," Tourism Economics, , vol. 25(1), pages 109-131, February.
    5. Piñeiro-Chousa, Juan & López-Cabarcos, M. Ángeles & Romero-Castro, Noelia María & Pérez-Pico, Ada María, 2020. "Innovation, entrepreneurship and knowledge in the business scientific field: Mapping the research front," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 475-485.
    6. Manish Tomar & Sunil Prajapat & Dheeraj Kumar & Pankaj Kumar & Rajesh Kumar & Athanasios V. Vasilakos, 2025. "Exploring the Role of Material Science in Advancing Quantum Machine Learning: A Scientometric Study," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-20, March.
    7. Maria Lourdes Ordoñez Olivo & Zoltán Lakner, 2023. "Shaping the Knowledge Base of Bioeconomy Sectors Development in Latin American and Caribbean Countries: A Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-18, March.
    8. M. M. Ahmed & A. Sadoon & M. T. Bassuoni & A. Ghazy, 2024. "Utilizing Agricultural Residues from Hot and Cold Climates as Sustainable SCMs for Low-Carbon Concrete," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-37, December.
    9. Akinpelu, O.A. & Olaleye, O. & Fagbola, O., . "The Soil Organic Matter Decomposers: A Bibliometric Analysis," International Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Research, Malwa International Journals Publication, vol. 9(4).
    10. Muhammad Farooq Islam & Ozge Can, 2024. "Integrating digital and sustainable entrepreneurship through business models: a bibliometric analysis," Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, Springer;UNESCO Chair in Entrepreneurship, vol. 14(1), pages 1-18, December.
    11. Urša Golob & Mark A. P. Davies & Joachim Kernstock & Shaun M. Powell, 2020. "Trending topics plus future challenges and opportunities in brand management," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 27(2), pages 123-129, March.
    12. Natalya Ivanova & Ekaterina Zolotova, 2023. "Landolt Indicator Values in Modern Research: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-22, June.
    13. Yucheng Zhang & Zhiling Wang & Lin Xiao & Lijun Wang & Pei Huang, 2023. "Discovering the evolution of online reviews: A bibliometric review," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 33(1), pages 1-22, December.
    14. Shobhit Kakaria & Aline Simonetti & Enrique Bigne, 2024. "Interaction between extrinsic and intrinsic online review cues: perspectives from cue utilization theory," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 2469-2497, December.
    15. Gaviria-Marin, Magaly & Merigó, José M. & Baier-Fuentes, Hugo, 2019. "Knowledge management: A global examination based on bibliometric analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 194-220.
    16. J. Gómez-Verjan & I. Gonzalez-Sanchez & E. Estrella-Parra & R. Reyes-Chilpa, 2015. "Trends in the chemical and pharmacological research on the tropical trees Calophyllum brasiliense and Calophyllum inophyllum, a global context," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(2), pages 1019-1030, November.
    17. Luis Araya-Castillo & Felipe Hernández-Perlines & Hugo Moraga & Antonio Ariza-Montes, 2021. "Scientometric Analysis of Research on Socioemotional Wealth," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-26, March.
    18. Juan F. Prados-Castillo & Miguel Ángel Solano-Sánchez & Pilar Guaita Fernández & José Manuel Guaita Martínez, 2023. "Potential of the Crypto Economy in Financial Management and Fundraising for Tourism," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-15, March.
    19. Loet Leydesdorff & Dieter Franz Kogler & Bowen Yan, 2017. "Mapping patent classifications: portfolio and statistical analysis, and the comparison of strengths and weaknesses," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(3), pages 1573-1591, September.
    20. Tuba Bircan & Almila Alkim Akdag Salah, 2022. "A Bibliometric Analysis of the Use of Artificial Intelligence Technologies for Social Sciences," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(23), pages 1-17, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:urbpla:v11:y:2026:a:10737. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira or IT Department (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.